QF 787 Tailstrike LHR

[NZScion]

Saw an article earlier today regarding a QF 787 Tailstrike at LHR. A search later today brings up a dearth of news results, the most pertinent from Simple Flying (https://simpleflying.com/qantas-787-tail-strike/) (not the most authoritative source I know). Was there or wasn't there an actual strike, or was this just a false positive? Crappy wx around the UK today. Either way disruptive for the pax.

[Buswinker]

Pax who were onboard report being told “engine issue”

[Sue Ridgepipe]

That's a lot of fuel to dump....I hope it doesn't affect Alan's bonus.

[Transition Layer]

Didn’t dump, apparently it landed at 248T, 6T below MTOW.

[Capt Fathom]

Could not have been much if any damage as it has arrived back in Perth today.

[IsDon01]

It wasn’t a strike. Just possibility of one. No damage as it didn’t make contact.

There’s a 787 bulletin that raises the possibility of spurious tail strike EICAS messages appearing in the cruise. Just speculating but maybe one of those.

[Sunfish]

How would you deal with carbon repairs in the event of a serious tail strike? :confused:

[IsDon01]

Thanks to a wayward virgin baggage can at Tullamarine a hole was punched under a 787.

I believe tooling and expertise has to be flown out from Boeing. It was repaired though.

I guess it depends on the extent of the damage whether a repair would be cost effective or not.

[Station Zero]

How would you deal with carbon repairs in the event of a serious tail strike? :confused:

Believe a serious permanent composite tail strike repair would involved cutting and splicing in a section of barrel.

Now if Boeing could manufacture that piece individually or would have to sacrifice a complete barrel from production would be an interesting question.

Beyond that small punctures have indeed been repaired by scarf type composite repairs to skin damage.

Also as the 787 is basically made up of of a few major parts, it is almost impossible to get a stringer or other part that is part of the barrel construction process separately.

[got_wheel]

It wasn’t a strike. Just possibility of one. No damage as it didn’t make contact.

There’s a 787 bulletin that raises the possibility of spurious tail strike EICAS messages appearing in the cruise. Just speculating but maybe one of those.

No damage to the 'fuselage' (wording so carefully crafted in the QANTAS comms email) - but what about that tail-skid?

Taken from AvHerald "The B787 has a bulletin out on nuisance Tailstrike warnings due to corrosion issues with the sensors however the bulletin indicates a Tailstrike message shown during take-off will be real Tailstrike, a indication later in flight might be a nuisance warning."

Reports in that the blade was shortened as a result of the ground contact, fuselage spared.

[IsDon01]

Your wording of the bulletin is correct. However, a nuisance warning can occur at any time, including takeoff. It’s just that at takeoff it’s possible that the warning is real and is to be treated as such.

If you say the sensors were scraped, then I can’t say you’re wrong as I’m not intimately involved in what happened. If so, the sensors did their job correctly.

What will be interesting, if this was a close call as you allege, did the tail strike protection system activate to protect the aircraft.

[got_wheel]

Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. Watch this space I guess.

Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.

[wheels_down]

Faaark Left Gear certainly took a hit.

4.22

https://youtu.be/Gln7T-xxE4k

[cattletruck]

How would you deal with carbon repairs in the event of a serious tail strike? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif

Just tell Alan there's this surfie dude in Bondi who says he can repair any hole.

[stiffwing]

“Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. “

Aircraft apparently u/s in Melbourne with damage to a component near the area in question.
Just coincidence, I guess

[Sunfish]

Just bog it up and paint it. There are plenty of crash repair shops around Craigieburn that can do it for you .....and they charge less for cash.

[navefenix]

Again, I'm not 100% sure as I was not directly involved but I have it on good authority that there was contact. Watch this space I guess.

Whats also interesting is that I understand the conditions at the time were absolutely heinous (gusts etc.) leading to said (near?) tail-strike. Taking these conditions into account I'd be interested as to why they landed ~55T over MLW when dumping fuel would have reduced the risk of any heavy landing.
strange to land without using fuel jettison being available, assuming no further non normals except possibly tailstrike, anyone could confíe such a weight at landing?

[navefenix]

At least in my airline, tailstrike NNC at t/off as the bulleting mentioned says, should be considered as real, so chklist tells you to land at the nearest suitable airport. But if no other non normals involved, jettison till MLM or nearby ( maintenance could tell you it’s ok for them to land above MLM up to a certain weight they calculate, so the after landing inspection is ( apart of tailstrike issue) minimal